• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary pledges an amendment to nullify 1st amendment in first 30 days

Harshaw said:
The Citizens United case had nothing to do with donations.
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE] The Citizens United ruling, released in January 2010, tossed out the corporate and union ban on making independent expenditures and financing electioneering communications. It gave corporations and unions the green light to spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools, calling for the election or defeat of individual candidates.[/QUOTE]
 
chuckiechan said:
The Citizens United ruling, released in January 2010, tossed out the corporate and union ban on making independent expenditures and financing electioneering communications. It gave corporations and unions the green light to spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools, calling for the election or defeat of individual candidates.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you need to read your own quote. It says nothing about donations. The CU rulling specifically left the limits on donations in place.

Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk
 
The Citizens United ruling, released in January 2010, tossed out the corporate and union ban on making independent expenditures and financing electioneering communications. It gave corporations and unions the green light to spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools, calling for the election or defeat of individual candidates.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Never mind that this is some else's summation of the case, and not the ruling . . .

Even this says it's not about donations. Can you spot your error?
 
DiAnna said:
Actually, I can't recall the last time anything got out of congress.
Click to expand...

It will never get ratified by the states.
There are hundreds of constitutional amendments a year.
Hardly any of them get out of committee
 
StillBallin75 said:
1) Even your link says "Something's gone terribly wrong." Either you linked to something that no longer exists or you screwed up the URL.

2) Hillary, as President, does not have the power to introduce a Constitutional Amendment. That requires members from the House, Senate, or two thirds of the States.

3) To say that wanting to overturn Citizens United is "nullifying the First Amendment" is such idiotic hyperbole I don't even know where to start. Overturning Citizens United is not "denying people an outlet to speak."

4) I'd say that allowing some people's "speech" to matter much more than that of others is way more corrosive to democracy.

Edit: found the actual link that works.

Hillary Clinton Pledges Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens United In Her First 30 Days
Click to expand...

While all true, what you cite above, I think it telling that Hillary would make such a bold, and known to be impossible to keep promise (so much for her 'well' informed electorate who's vote she's after).

In essence I agree with another poster (perhaps another thread?) who stated that if Unions get to dump $100's millions into campaigns, business should be able to as well. In this, I see Hillary as wanting the former, but wanting to ban the latter, which I'd say is rather typical of her.
 
Harshaw said:
The Citizens United case had nothing to do with donations.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that you are a lawyer and specialize in the details, but the effect of CU was to reduce the money spent on Republican efforts because Republicans attract more business money. That money is usually expressed by PAC's, where as the Democrats have more small donations and in kind donations by the unions. If you take the role of money beyond it's definition, in politics who has the most, wins.

Who would fund the Republican party? It's business members are often boycotted and called out by the press for supporting certain candidates. In an ideal CU world, they are just supposed to not make a peep while their interests are decided by democrats?

All income originates in the private sector, thus they have a dog in the fight and the battle is fought with money regardless of the technicalities of where it comes from.

The effect of CU if it remained in place would be to decimate the funding of the republican party and pretending the playing field was level for them. Decimation of the republican funding base was the goal.
 
chuckiechan said:
in politics who has the most, wins.
Click to expand...

That's demonstrably untrue.

Who would fund the Republican party?
Click to expand...

I don't care. My views on the First Amendment aren't affected by who funds any party.

It's business members are often boycotted and called out by the press for supporting certain candidates. In an ideal CU world, they are just supposed to not make a peep while their interests are decided by democrats?

All income originates in the private sector, thus they have a dog in the fight and the battle is fought with money regardless of the technicalities of where it comes from.

The effect of CU if it remained in place would be to decimate the funding of the republican party and pretending the playing field was level for them. Decimation of the republican funding base was the goal.
Click to expand...

You actually think the motivation behind the majority in Citizens United was to defund the Republican Party?

Oh, my. There's no path forward in this conversation.
 
Harshaw said:
You actually think the motivation behind the majority in Citizens United was to defund the Republican Party?

Oh, my. There's no path forward in this conversation.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I'm sorry you feel that way.
 
Crovax said:
Hillary Clinton Pledges Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens United In Her First 30 Days

Money in politics can certainly be corrosive, however denying people an outlet to speak is much more corrosive.
Click to expand...

and this sounds good

Clinton has also pledged to issue an executive order to require government contractors to disclose campaign contributions, and has said she would push the Securities and Exchange Commission to require all publicly traded companies to disclose political contributions to their stockholders.
 
This thread is largely a bunch of people getting their panties in a bunch over nothing. There will be no constitutional amendment that overturns Citizens United or anything else (be it flag burning, birth right citizenship or defining marriage). The chances of getting any constitution amendment done in this environment are...... (where is my event probability calculator?)......ZERO....even Trump has a better shot at the White House then a Constitution Amendment effected in the next decade.

That said, the path to defining some of the precedent set by the Citizen's United ruling is a constitutional amendment. The ruling was board and far reaching (and many arguing that the SCOTUS legislated from the bench on this one). There are questions of the power of money in speech and whether we have or will moved from a one man-one vote philosophy to a one dollar-one vote. Constitutional amendment is indeed the correct venue for cleaning up such an issue. its just that it will never happen.

As to Hillary's "power" to do so? Wow, a bunch of people got bunched up on that one. Of course she has no such power. She will, however, have the bully pulpit as head of her party. As such, she can (and will) have significant influence in crafting legislation. The Democrat leaders will do everything in their power to effect her legislative agenda. Its not a question of her explicit power; its a question of her implied/de facto power.

That all said, Presidential candidates like to tell their constituents that they are going to amend the Constitution to effect the agenda they want to sell (it seems to me some Republicans are telling us they are going to get rid of birthright citizenship via constitutional means). These are idle promises that play well with low information voters (who have no clue about the Constitutional Amendment process ... either legally or practically)...and when it doesn't happen, as it won't, its not the politicians fault... its the other guy.

This whole thread is arguing about a non-issue.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
This thread is largely a bunch of people getting their panties in a bunch over nothing. There will be no constitutional amendment that overturns Citizens United or anything else (be it flag burning, birth right citizenship or defining marriage). The chances of getting any constitution amendment done in this environment are...... (where is my event probability calculator?)......ZERO....even Trump has a better shot at the White House then a Constitution Amendment effected in the next decade.

That said, the path to defining some of the precedent set by the Citizen's United ruling is a constitutional amendment. The ruling was board and far reaching (and many arguing that the SCOTUS legislated from the bench on this one). There are questions of the power of money in speech and whether we have or will moved from a one man-one vote philosophy to a one dollar-one vote. Constitutional amendment is indeed the correct venue for cleaning up such an issue. its just that it will never happen.

As to Hillary's "power" to do so? Wow, a bunch of people got bunched up on that one. Of course she has no such power. She will, however, have the bully pulpit as head of her party. As such, she can (and will) have significant influence in crafting legislation. The Democrat leaders will do everything in their power to effect her legislative agenda. Its not a question of her explicit power; its a question of her implied/de facto power.

That all said, Presidential candidates like to tell their constituents that they are going to amend the Constitution to effect the agenda they want to sell (it seems to me some Republicans are telling us they are going to get rid of birthright citizenship via constitutional means). These are idle promises that play well with low information voters (who have no clue about the Constitutional Amendment process ... either legally or practically)...and when it doesn't happen, as it won't, its not the politicians fault... its the other guy.

This whole thread is arguing about a non-issue.
Click to expand...

How exactly did the majority "legislate from the bench"?
 
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Anytime a court answers a bigger question than was asked, they are legislating from the bench.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-catastrophe/2012/02/05/gIQATOEfsQ_story.html
Legislating from the Bench - Harvard Political Review
https://www.normangoldman.com/about-that-legislating-from-the-bench/ which references Chief Justice John Roberts' Supreme Court at 10, defying labels
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zephyr-teachout/six-years-of-citizens-uni_b_9038654.html
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-0512-citizens-united-20160512-story.html
Click to expand...

Nobody at those links explains how the court "legislated." At best, they just declare it happened. And Dionne seems to think the Court striking down a law as unconstitutional is "legislating," which is ridiculous.

How about you take a crack at it? This requires actually parsing the decision itself, of course.
 
Harshaw said:
That's demonstrably untrue.



I don't care. My views on the First Amendment aren't affected by who funds any party.
Click to expand...
Yeah, right. :roll:
 
StillBallin75 said:
3) To say that wanting to overturn Citizens United is "nullifying the First Amendment" is such idiotic hyperbole I don't even know where to start. Overturning Citizens United is not "denying people an outlet to speak."
Click to expand...

Under Citizens United, the government claimed the right to ban books. I'd say that counts.
 
Crovax said:
Money in politics can certainly be corrosive, however denying people an outlet to speak is much more corrosive.
Click to expand...

Money is not speech, it is volume. It is the ability to turn your speech up so loud that the speech of others cannot be heard. The point of free speech is to insure that all speech can be heard, not to let those with money drown out the speech of others. That is the antithesis of free speech.
 
MrWonka said:
Money is not speech, it is volume. It is the ability to turn your speech up so loud that the speech of others cannot be heard. The point of free speech is to insure that all speech can be heard, not to let those with money drown out the speech of others. That is the antithesis of free speech.
Click to expand...

I don't recall the principle of "volume" being inherent to free speech rights.

Now storming a stage, grabbing a microphone, disrupting, or otherwise attempting to stop speech certainly is. But being more or less vocal, IMO, has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.
 
StillBallin75 said:
1) Even your link says "Something's gone terribly wrong." Either you linked to something that no longer exists or you screwed up the URL.

2) Hillary, as President, does not have the power to introduce a Constitutional Amendment. That requires members from the House, Senate, or two thirds of the States.

3) To say that wanting to overturn Citizens United is "nullifying the First Amendment" is such idiotic hyperbole I don't even know where to start. Overturning Citizens United is not "denying people an outlet to speak."

4) I'd say that allowing some people's "speech" to matter much more than that of others is way more corrosive to democracy.

Edit: found the actual link that works.

Hillary Clinton Pledges Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens United In Her First 30 Days
Click to expand...

This whole post was rude, hyperbolic garbage it's an embarrassment to have read it.
 
Renae said:
They didnt' do as the Left wanted, so it's evil.
Click to expand...

If you read the E.J. Dionne piece he linked to, that's pretty much what it comes down to.
 
cpwill said:
Under Citizens United, the government claimed the right to ban books. I'd say that counts.
Click to expand...

The solicitor argued that it had the power to, yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom